* 현재 컨텐츠 정보를 준비 중에 있습니다.

[닫기]

This article argues for a simple hypothesis of VPE (VP Ellipsis) licensing in English--VPE is licensed only by the first auxiliary verb in both infinitival and finite clauses. This is made possible in part by showing that the infinitive to, control or ECM/raising, regarded as a kind of auxiliary verb, can (non)locally license VPE in infinitival clauses. The apparent difference between control to and ECM/raising to in licensing VPE is shown to follow from different phonological properties of the two--the former is an “enleaner” (cf. Zwicky 1982) similar to an enclitic, but the latter is a “proleaner” similar to a proclitic. In particular, this article argues that the sentential not does not license VPE, as opposed to common belief. The advocated hypothesis entails nonlocal VPE licensing by the first auxiliary verb over one or more auxiliary verbs and/or the negator not, which is elaborated in a way sensitive to Case.

[닫기]